Detnator
About
- Username
- Detnator
- Joined
- Visits
- 44
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 620
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 287
Reactions
-
Apple Studio Display review: How badly do you want an all-Apple experience?
Umm… huh?fastasleep said:
What does 720 or 1080p have anything to do with anything regarding display resolution?tenthousandthings said:
Agree — this isn’t rocket science.foregoneconclusion said:
If 5K screen tech is "old", then what does that make 2K and 4K? That's what all the other manufacturers are selling: variations of 2K and 4K screen tech. Nobody is rolling out a 30" 6K monitor with 120 MHz and true HDR for $1599.9secondkox2 said:The studio display is beautiful to look at. I want that exact aesthetic on my desks.But… it’s just a repackaged old screen with a crappy webcam and it’s too small.1080p = 1920x1080
4K is double that, 3840x2160
8K is double that, 7680x4320
720p = 1280x720 (the original “HD”)1440p is double that, 2560x1440
5K is double that, 5120x2880
5K isn’t some random thing. It has real utility.
720p and 1080p (in the typical day to day use of those terms) *are* display resolutions.
-
Apple facing new $5.5 billion App Store antitrust lawsuit in the Netherlands
Avon, Crowley, Elijah, and others… we’ve been over this apps thing with all of you before and you just refuse to listen to anything while you keep spouting your points without any sensible response to the counter points. The argument hasn’t changed…
This whole thing about users can choose not to buy from other stores has a honking huge hole in it that you just keep dismissing.
Take Facebook. Facebook doesn’t care about the 30% because facebook’s business model is ad driven. But Facebook hates that Apple is enforcing that iOS apps give users the choice to not be tracked.So when Apple is forced to allow third party app stores, how quickly do you think Facebook will no longer be available on the Apple App Store? I’d give it seconds. Ok. Maybe days.After that, I then have a new choice to make - and unlike the current situation, both choices suck. By your arguments, If I want Facebook I have to switch off the security settings that I get by only using the Apple App Store so I can use Facebook (now without the option to stop them tracking me). Or, I can keep my security preferences and I just have to forego Facebook. That’s the choice you’re suggesting I be ok with.Personally I hate Facebook but there are some businesses I deal with that require I use it for certain interactions. I will not have the choice to just ignore Facebook and certain other apps without a not insignificant hit to my business. So I will be required to reduce the security of my device. At that point I have had choice taken away from me.And that is just one example. There are plenty of devs who will jump at the opportunity to be free of the restrictions Apple puts in place to protect me, the customer. Plenty of devs who will relish the ability to deceive me and exploit me and I will be forced to choose between those apps with all the risks or forego those apps. Sure many of them may have safe Apple App Store alternatives, but many of them won’t. Case in point Facebook.
Crowley your comment that some other company will fill the void in the case of apps by devs that choose to leave the Apple App Store is just ridiculous. Who is going to replace Facebook? And what about Apps an employer might insist their employees use? Or a dictatorial government of their citizens?All of you, we’ve been through this but you have never expressed a solution to these points that doesn’t simply ignore them, or some fundamental part of them. Yet you still insist that Apple should be forced to take away one of the primary reasons I choose Apple.Elijah you’re saying the choice to block sideloading is Apple’s not yours, but you bought Apple devices anyway. THAT is your choice. Your insistence that Apple be forced to allow third party app stores makes as much sense as me trying to insist I want a Volvo convertible but it has to be rear wheel drive. Volvo doesn’t make one. How dare they (Volvo) deny me that choice!!!
Or I could just buy a BMW or Mercedes instead.You say you prefer Apple’s balance. Ok let’s get specific. What is so great about iOS that Android doesn’t have that you’ll buy an iOS device despite how opposed you are to arguably its most fundamental principle?
You can’t have it both ways. Apple’s stuff works the way it works because of a number of their design philosophies, one of which is how tightly locked down and protected it is. If they are forced allow public sideloading it will destroy that. How can you not see that iOS is the most secure and privacy protecting OS on the planet unlike Windows, Android, and yes even macOS? It’s no coincidence that the most locked down OS is also the most secure and privacy protecting one. It’s just plain facts in front of your eyes and explained to you countless ways by others here but all of you are in denial about it. — just conveniently ignoring the evidence and consistently sidestepping.
There are two models:
1. locked down, secure, limited, protected, etc.2. Open, free for all, much more flexible, much less secure and private.Some people prefer and choose option 1. Some people prefer and choose option 2. And that’s good. We have choice.You want the lawmakers to force option 1 out of existence and then we only have option 2. If you succeed then you’ve taken away the choice of option 1 from the people who prefer that option.Again all of this has been explained by multiple people here over and over again.Same with the “it’s my hardware” argument. Yep, but it’s not your OS. That point has been made countless times here and every time, the “it’s my hardware” commenter just slinks off with no response until they have another opportunity to spring up and spout it somewhere else. One of you is guilty of that in this thread. I challenge you to come back with a sensible response.For the love of all things sacred give us an argument or two that addresses the points we’re actually making instead of constantly sidestepping them.Otherwise, are you just here to blindly bash Apple without reason..? Why??
-
What it took for Apple to win Best Picture at the Oscars with 'CODA'
Have to agree with this. It seems strange to think Apple had anything to do with winning these awards.jospkelly said:As expected, accolades for Apple as being the "First Streaming Service to Win the Beat Picture Oscar" are rolling in. Instead the focus should be on those that contributed artistically and technically to the film. Apple merely had deep pockets that allowed them to buy the distribution rights to the movie (beating out Amazon). This is not Apple's award.
In this article, CODA is referred to as "Original Content" multiple times. Technically that is a true statement because CODA is not available to view on other outlets. But the term "original content" is misleading because it implies that Apple developed the material. They did not.
I enjoyed this movie, and I enjoy other entertainment that Apple offers on its service. But Apple's role in this situation was akin to buying an escort to accompany them to the Prom in order to be voted Prom Royalty.
I will gladly acknowledge Apple, or any other company, that financially supports a project from its inception, hires a casting director, cinematographer, screenplay writer, etc., and truly nurtures the project from beginning to end. This is not what Apple did regarding CODA.Apple gets some credit for making a bold choice in purchasing decisions. No doubt they chose it because it’s a bit left field, brings to light some of the challenges of a differently abled minority, etc., which are topics close to Apple’s virtual heart. That’s worth something. Or in the above analogy they get credit for choosing the right escort to hire for the prom. But yeah, I think that’s about as far as it goes. Apple didn’t win any of this in any shape or form.I appreciate that Tim Cook has the decency and grace to praise the cast, crew, etc. and make no mention of Apple in his tweet, and Zack van Amburg only mentions Apple as who he’s representing in expressing his and their praise for the creatives. At least these guys seem to have their heads on straight about it, more or less.
-
Samsung's $700 Smart Monitor M8 borrows Apple's multi-colored iMac style
You lucky bastard. That’s so great. Samesung gave you what you wanted, and Apple gave me what I wanted. We’re both happy!! Isn’t it great to have choice?!shareef777 said:THIS is what I wanted from Apple's consumer monitor.
Really… I don’t get it. Why are all you people complaining that Apple doesn’t make a monitor like everyone else’s? Apple’s whole point is they make different stuff to everyone else. It’s the same with everything…
“Why can’t Apple make a cheap expandable tower — like PC’s?”
”Why can’t Apple make iOS more open, sideloading apps, etc. — like Android?”
And now it’s “Why can’t Apple make a cheap low spec consumer monitor — like everyone else?”The answer: Because 99% of Apple’s customers buy Apple stuff BECAUSE Apple does it differently to everyone else (not despite it). Why is that so hard to understand?
Apple’s market share is small, because Apple’s target market - the people they are trying to cater to — is small. Apple makes their products for, and targets, the people who want something more premium with different features and focus to what everyone else makes, and see the value in that, and are happy to pay for it.Apple’s customers are the misfits. We’re the people that aren’t happy with the consequences of a more open mobile OS, computers made by pulling together off the shelf parts, and cheap low resolution/ppi, low brightness, plastic displays.We want integrated packages that just work out of the box, work better because everything is integrated and specifically designed to work together, we don’t have to tinker with them. We don’t buy iPhones and iPads despite the closed OS we buy them BECAUSE of the closed OS. And we want a monitor that is retina resolution (at least 210-220 ppi), bright (no, 400nits is not bright enough), lightweight, premium build, a stand that isn’t wobbly and sticky and impossible to align, etc. etc.
if you want Apple to make a consumer monitor like everyone else’s consumer monitor… WHY?? What’s the point? You’ve got a million other choices in that market, what on earth can Apple or most of Apple’s customers possibly gain by Apple adding just another entry to that list? And how is that good for those of us who can’t stand all those other monitors that everyone else makes?
I don’t get it. I really don’t.
-
Apple Studio Display review: How badly do you want an all-Apple experience?
Ok… gotta tell ya… this is getting a bit silly, even almost irritating. You’ve made your point (repeatedly). We get it. But you keep missing the opposing fundamental point: You don’t have the resolution.HobeSoundDarryl said:Curved ultra-wides can be remarkably productive screens. I chose one purely to use that way. Basically the goal was more horizontal screen real estate and that's exactly what it got me. I chose a 5K2K 40" from Dell.
Doing content creation work with apps like FCPX means I can now spread the timeline out over much more screen RE instead of scroll-scroll-scroll as was necessary with my iMac 27". Even if the ultimate render is for 16:9, creating such content probably can't have too much horizontal screen RE. Else, if the argument is that one needs no more than enough width to fit a 16:9 frame (thus 5K iMac screen) with app controls in the remaining space, put that window in about that amount of space on a 5K ultra-wide screen and have all of this spare screen space for email, safari, etc. too. When I'm developing videos, I often want to access some stock images or videos to mix in. On an ultra-wide, I can have Safari on the same screen to source such stuff instead of having to flip to a virtual screen.
When I'm working with office apps like Pages, Numbers, etc, I can get 3 full windows open side by side with tangibly usable widths to do whatever I'm wanting to do in them. This is particularly helpful when developing content where I am pulling from other information sources. For example, Pages with a full window next to Safari with a full window or two so I can look things up in Safari to help me develop the content in Pages. Formerly, that was 2 windows side by side at best and/or scrolling back and forth to virtual screens. Now it's all on ONE screen.
Many of the people who dreamed of an iMac 27"-sized screen to put next to their iMac 27" for dual screen productivity can buy an ultra-wide and get both screens in ONE frame. Ultra-wides are not exclusive for only gaming or only consumption. Anyone adding a second screen for more space for production or even using Sidebar-type options with iPads are basically showing a tangible desire for more working space. Ultra-wides are one way to get it.When they make a display that’s ultra wide 2880p (so something like 6828x2880) or more then your point will have more validity in this context.In the meantime those looking at this ASD need pixels. Lots of pixels. 5K is almost twice 4K’s pixel count. No amount of width can make up for that.Your point is valid in the context you originally raised it. But I gotta say, harping on it this much while missing the pixel count point is defraying your credibility.Ok, the phrasing in this message is a little harsher than I intend it to be, but can’t quite figure out how to say it differently. No offense intended here.
